Should religion be taught in schools?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

Or a second artist was hired later to 'cover up' the unmentionables with strategically placed material and foliage. However the church did have a major impact across not only art but a lot of aspects of the renaissance.

The forced themselves on it as a way of control! They do the same think nowadays but ar a lot of subtle about it.

norrie rugger

Crow92 wrote: »

I think religion should be taught in school, world religion, informative information on the beliefs of all the major religions of the world, not focusing on raising you as a catholic but teaching you above all different religions.

why is school the place for this?
what constitutes major?
do you also explain the different sects, within the same religion?
is atheism to be taught also?

Chuck Stone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TME30pPBw58

philologos

Akrasia wrote: »

It is just as important to know why something is right or wrong as it is to know what is right and what is wrong if we are to be providing a proper education. The 10 Commandments are a very very poor substitute for a dialogue on ethics

Can't one very easily derive the reasoning as to why things are good and wrong from the Ten Commandments or any other moral guidance in the Bible for that matter?

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

You might say that non-believers can do what is good. I believe this too, but why do they do what is good. Ultimately because of the conscience that is given to them by God.

Oh ffs.... No... it's a survival trait, we cant survive on our own so we developed as pack animal. being a horrible bastard would have had you thrown out of the cave to face the wilds alone.

simple as that.

Does god make mistakes with psychopaths and forget to install the conscience programming?

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

Oh ffs.... No... it's a survival trait, we cant survive on our own so we developed as pack animal. being a horrible bastard would have had you thrown out of the cave to face the wilds alone.

simple as that.

Explain self-sacrifice or altruism then. Often what is right leads us to do what isn't in our interest.

RichieC wrote: »

Does god make mistakes with psychopaths and forget to install the conscience programming?

Many people decide to ditch it. I believe that God makes us capable to do good, but ultimately our free will can lead us to do what is evil.

Akrasia

Seachmall wrote: »

There are facts about Christianity. Christianity exists. This is a fact. Christians are theists. This is a fact. Christians believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. This is a fact.

These are the facts I'm talking about teaching. Not presenting Christian beliefs as fact but presenting historical, cultural, etc. facts about religion.

Teaching those kinds of facts is not education, it's trivia.

The origin of the beliefs is just as important as the fact of the belief. For example, "christians believe in the trinity" is just as valid on the face of it as "Scientologists believe in Xenu"
The context that L Ron Hubbard pulled his theology from the rejected ideas of unwritten sci fi books is very important in assessing whether Scientology should be taken seriously or not.

The context of the evidence of the biblical claims of christianity should also be taught as part of a comparative religion course

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

You might say that non-believers can do what is good. I believe this too, but why do they do what is good. Ultimately because of the conscience that is given to them by God. It is also possible that we can ignore our consciences and fall short of God's standards, namely to do what is evil.

This is similar logic to the Watch-Maker perspective (which I assume you subscribe).

Evolution explains how we became to be intelligent without the need for God. Stating God guided it is an arbitrary pin-on.

Evolution explains how we developed a conscience without the need for God. Stating God gave it to us is an arbitrary pin-on.

Akrasia wrote:

The origin of the beliefs is just as important as the fact of the belief. For example, "christians believe in the trinity" is just as valid on the face of it as "Scientologists believe in Xenu"

Scientology doesn't have as much an impact on current world events, or historical events, as the Abrahamic or other major religions. To understand the world we live in we need to understand the catalysts. Religion is one of these catalysts.

Akrasia

philologos wrote: »

Can't one very easily derive the reasoning as to why things are good and wrong from the Ten Commandments or any other moral guidance in the Bible for that matter?

No. Not at all. Why did god think it was more important to put in a commandment about taking his name in vain but didn't think it was important to put in a commandment against rape, or war, or slavery....

philologos

See what I've said above to RichieC.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Explain self-sacrifice or altruism then. Often what is right leads us to do what isn't in our interest.

because generally the self sacrifice is in aid of our close relatives with whom we share genetic code with.. it still boils down to survival.

Bee's self sacrifice for the good of their hive, as do ants and many other swarming insects.


there's a great documentary on it I'll try dig up and post.

philologos wrote: »

Many people decide to ditch it. I believe that God makes us capable to do good, but ultimately our free will can lead us to do what is evil.

Psychopaths do not decide to be so.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

See what I've said above to RichieC.

Presuming you mean this,

philologos wrote: »

Can't one very easily derive the reasoning as to why things are good and wrong from the Ten Commandments or any other moral guidance in the Bible for that matter?

We can, but it's unnecessary. It's confusing if anything when not teaching the religion as fact.

Explain self-sacrifice or altruism then. Often what is right leads us to do what isn't in our interest.

A pack is more likely to survive if those in it are more likely to defend and help eachother. And hence, the individuals are more likely to pass on their genes.

philologos

Akrasia wrote: »

No. Not at all. Why did god think it was more important to put in a commandment about taking his name in vain but didn't think it was important to put in a commandment against rape, or war, or slavery....

There are commandments in respect to rape. There are commandments pertaining to the exploitation of slaves which were pretty much the same thing as hired workers in the Old Testament and in the New Testament both in respect to slaves and their masters. I've gone through this systematically on this thread the A&A forum in the past.

If you look to the study I provided earlier in this thread, it is evident that Christianity encourages ethical behaviour in its adherents. The study in the UK found that more evangelical Christians volunteered and contributed to their society than the average. Not saying this as any means of blowing their trumpets precisely because I believe it is God that is at work in them.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

because generally the self sacrifice is in aid of our close relatives with whom we share genetic code with.. it still boils down to survival.

Bee's self sacrifice for the good of their hive, as do ants and many other swarming insects.

What about self-sacrifice in respect to others who aren't our relatives? In fact self-sacrifice in respect to those to whom we mightn't even by all that cordial to?

Is it rare? Yes. Does it happen? Yes.

Interpreting every ethical action in respect to survival is ultimately flawed.

dvpower

fonril wrote: »

I'm not a parent and know that this might irk people who are but isn't it just too easy for the parents to send the children off to school and let the teachers do the educating when it comes to religion? If it wasn't taught in school then parents would have to make an effort to take them to church and teach them about religion themselves if they wanted them brought up in that faith, which surely would be the right way for it to be taught.

And I suspect that a lot of those parents that aren't currently packing the churches out every Sunday wouldn't bother with religious instruction either.

The state seem to be wasting our resources in providing for religious instruction in our primary schools when the parents won't even fulfill their obligations re church attendance.

Seachmall

philologos wrote:

What about self-sacrifice in respect to others who aren't our relatives? In fact self-sacrifice in respect to those to whom we mightn't even by all that cordial to?

Is it rare? Yes. Does it happen? Yes.

Interpreting every ethical action in respect to survival is ultimately flawed.

Because communities and societies grew much faster than evolution adapts and so we never biologically learnt to differentiate between those who are our pack and aren't our pack. We're not the only ones who do it.

Evolutionary altruism is not flawed.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Interpreting every ethical action in respect to survival is ultimately flawed.

As flawed as laying it at the feet of an invisible man?

philologos

Seachmall: My post wasn't even about education. There are multiple discussions happening on thread now. Someone said that morality is separate to faith, I don't really believe it is which is why I questioned that persons post. It has nothing to do with education. I think parents are best to teach their children about ethics as I don't believe a State ethics class would really be all that good.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: My post wasn't even about education. There are multiple discussions happening on thread now. Someone said that morality is separate to faith, I don't really believe it is which is why I questioned that persons post. It has nothing to do with education. I think parents are best to teach their children about ethics as I don't believe a State ethics class would really be all that good.

Apologies, although I edited my post to address your comment on sacrificing for others.

Powerhouse

RichieC wrote: »

Evolution is only a theory.

I'd have thought there was already a clue in the name...the theory of evolution? No? No harm in clarity I suppose! :P

barry711

Seachmall wrote: »

"There are currently X million Christians in the world." "Christians believe X and Y." "Christianity has had a huge influence on renaissance artists X, Y and Z." And so on.

Sorry mate thats a fallacy. Just because a lot of people believ in X, Y and Z does not make it true or a fact. Come on even you know that

flutterflye

Powerhouse wrote: »

flutterflye wrote: »

He is right when he says it's almost mandatory.

I have already given the figures which show he is talking bunkum

Yar.

You don't seem to be getting the point.
Also, at the end of my post, I made it clear that I wasn't sure about secondary school, as I have no experience or adequate knowledge on the issue of religion in secondary schools.

We had religion class in my secondary school, but I never went.
But there again, I didn't go to most of my classes.

I do remember a few classes in 3rd year though, where the religion teacher was this 60 year old (at least) absolute nutjob.
He would shout down any student who so much as questioned anything he was saying.
So lets say someone asked "if god did not want people to be gay, why did he make them gay?"
Instead of considering the point, or even giving a half assed answer, he would spend half the class shouting at them for having the audacity to question their maker, and telling them they were wrong using bible quotes!

Anyway, I am far more concerned with biased religion being taught in primary schools as they are more vulnerable, and susceptible to just blindly believing anything they are told, especially by teachers and other adults.

barry711

Akrasia wrote: »

The only reason the religious orders want to keep religion as a part of the curriculum in primary schools, is because they know that if was left up to the parents to teach their kids about religion, half the children of ireland would grow up totally ignorant of catholic theology


They also know that it is far far easier to get people to believe in christianity (or any other religion) when they are young impressionable and naive or otherwise vulnerable to suggestion

Your making two very different statements here. On one had your saying that the only reason the church want it is because parents would mis-inform there kids about catholic theology. Then on the other had your saying: They also know that it is far far easier to get people to believe in christianity (or any other religion) when they are young impressionable and naive or otherwise vulnerable to suggestion...sounds like brainwashing to me.

philologos

barry711 wrote: »

Sorry mate thats a fallacy. Just because a lot of people believ in X, Y and Z does not make it true or a fact. Come on even you know that

He's not saying that.

He's saying that it is factual that Christians believe it, not that the beliefs themselves are facts. That's a simple distinction surely.

flutterflye

Powerhouse wrote: »

I'd have thought there was already a clue in the name...the theory of evolution? No? No harm in clarity I suppose! :P

Do you not understand the word "theory" in this context?
Or are you just trying to be funny?

AudreyHepburn

steve06 wrote: »

It is not ironic or silly at all. How can anyone possibly decide for themselves when you only have 1 side forcing an opinion on you? He has been thought nothing about other religions in school and hasn't been though about morals. Children are told catholic bible stories like they're fact and I don't agree with it.

If your child was being though Muslim fundamentalist fairy tales as fact would you be happy to let them decide for themselves or would you tell them otherwise?

So it is better for you to tell him that is fact the there is no God? Hypocrasy if I ever saw it.

What you or I believe is irrelevant here. It is about the child deciding for themselves.

What you need to do, as I would if and when I am a mother, is explain that everyone believes different things, your teacher might believe X and I believe Y but it is up to you decide for yourself.

philologos

AudreyHepburn: I don't actually blame steve06. If I had children I would certainly encourage them to follow Jesus rather than following any other ideology. steve06 clearly believes that atheism is a beneficial system of thought therefore he would prefer if his child were a non-believer rather than a theist. Personally, I believe that Christianity is essential in a persons life, therefore I would encourage it in any person irrespective of whether or not they were my family members. I long for all people to know about the Gospel. Whether or not steve06 feels the same about atheism is up to him.

dvpower

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What you need to do, as I would if and when I am a mother, is explain that everyone believes different things, your teacher might believe X and I believe Y but it is up to you decide for yourself.

That's assuming that X and Y are equally likely.
If a teacher us telling your child, say, that the Earth is 6000 years old and you think it's over 4 billion years old, you'd be wrong to tell the child to make their own mind up.

Its crazy to expect a religious parent who wants to raise thier child in their religion to act like an agnostic on the issue. Likewise, it's crazy to expect an atheist parent to do the same. This stuff is the job of parents, but not of states.

AMi I the onlyone here sick of the constant round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round......


You get the picture.

Oh, wait, it's just me? this place is *private* for serious debaters *only*? My mistake.

Sorry, I'll back out of this hamsterwheel. You god botherers and god botherer botherers go have fun in the back yard now......

*leaves*

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

AMi I the onlyone here sick of the constant round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round......


You get the picture.

Oh, wait, it's just me? this place is *private* for serious debaters *only*? My mistake.

Sorry, I'll back out of this hamsterwheel. You god botherers and god botherer botherers go have fun in the back yard now......

*leaves*

Did s/he just revolt?:pac: